Citation NR: 9604542
Decision Date: 02/26/96 Archive Date: 03/08/96
DOCKET NO. 91-19 278 ) DATE
)
)
On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Denver,
Colorado
THE ISSUES
1. Entitlement to service connection for degenerative joint
disease of multiple joints.
2. Entitlement to service connection for the postoperative
residuals of a deviated nasal septum.
3. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension.
4. Entitlement to an increased evaluation for low back
syndrome, currently evaluated as 10 percent disabling.
5. Entitlement to an increased evaluation for allergic and
vasomotor rhinitis, currently evaluated as 10 percent
disabling.
6. Entitlement to a total rating based on individual
unemployability due to service connected disabilities.
REPRESENTATION
Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans
WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL
Appellant
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD
William J. Jefferson, Counsel
INTRODUCTION
The veteran had active service from August 1962 to October
1988.
This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board)
on appeal from a rating decision of the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA), Denver, Colorado, Regional Office
(RO).
A rating decision dated in October 1989 denied service
connection for multiple joint arthritis; a deviated nasal
septum; and hypertension. Service connection for low back
syndrome and allergic and vasomotor rhinitis was granted, and
respectively, 10 percent disability evaluations were awarded.
A personal hearing was held at the RO in December 1990.
This case was remanded by the Board in February 1992 for the
RO to consider the issue of entitlement to a total rating
based on individual unemployability due to service-connected
disabilities. A rating decision dated in September 1992
denied the claim of entitlement to a total rating based on
individual unemployability due to service-connected
disabilities. The veteran disagreed with the determination
in an October 1992 statement.
The issues of entitlement to service connection for
hypertension and a total rating based on individual
unemployability due to service-connected disabilities, will
be the subject of the remand portion of this decision.
CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL
The veteran contends that he has a deviated nasal septum
which is the result of an injury that he sustained during
service. The veteran argues he has worsening low back
syndrome and allergic vasomotor rhinitis, and that these
disorders are far more disabling than the respective
10 percent disability evaluations indicate. In addition, the
veteran maintains that an October 1993 VA medical examination
is inadequate since statements concerning his medical history
were inaccurately reported.
DECISION OF THE BOARD
The Board, in accordance with the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A.
§ 7104 (West 1991, amended by Supp. 1995), has reviewed and
considered all of the evidence and material of record in the
veteran's claims files. It is the decision of the Board that
the preponderance of the evidence is against the veteran's
claims of entitlement to increased evaluations for low back
syndrome and allergic and vasomotor rhinitis. It is also the
decision of the Board that the preponderance of the evidence
is in favor of the veteran's claim of entitlement to service
connection for the postoperative residuals of a deviated
nasal septum.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. A deviated nasal septum was first shown during service
and residuals of a deviated nasal septum are shown after
service.
2. The low back syndrome results in limitation of motion of
the lumbar spine along with some neurological deficit
indicated by positive straight leg raising; but is not
productive of moderate limitation of motion of the lumbar
spine; or muscle spasm on extreme forward bending, unilateral
loss of spine motion in the standing position.
3. The allergic and vasomotor rhinitis is not productive of
moderate crusting and ozena, atrophic changes.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
2. The postoperative residuals of a deviated nasal septum
were incurred during service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131,
5107 (West 1991, amended by Supp. 1995).
3. A rating in excess of 10 percent for low back syndrome is
not warranted. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1155, 5107 (West 1991, amended
by Supp. 1995);
38 C.F.R. §§ 3.321(b) 4.7, 4.71a, Codes 5010, 5292, 5295
(1995).
4. A rating in excess of 10 percent for allergic and
vasomotor rhinitis is not warranted. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1155,
5107 (West 1991, amended by Supp. 1995); 38 C.F.R.
§§ 3.321(b), 4.7, 4.97, Code 6501 (1995).
REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Deviated Nasal Septum
The appellant's claim is well grounded, that is, it is not
inherently implausible. The facts relevant to the issues on
appeal have been properly developed and the statutory duty of
the VA to assist the appellant in the development of his claim
has been satisfied. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991).
Service connection may be granted for disability resulting
from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service.
38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131.
Factual Background
Pre Officer Candidate School medical history and physical
examination records dated in May 1962 are negative for any
complaints or findings referable to the nose nor do they
reveal a deviated nasal septum.
Service medical records from early 1972 reported complaints
of a left nasal obstruction. A physical examination report
dated in March 1972, performed in conjunction with complaints
of rhinitis and asthma, indicated that the left nostril was
completely occluded by a swollen turbinate and a deviated
septum. The veteran received treatment for continued
complaints of partial obstruction and a deviated left nasal
septum. At examination in February 1975, a marked septal
deflection to the left was reported. In April 1975 a
posterior partial nasal septectomy and anterior nasal
septoplasty were performed. It was indicated that the
deviated nasal septum was probably secondary to old trauma.
In a January 1976 service annual physical examination report,
it was indicated that a deviated septum had been corrected by
submucous resection, with good results.
A VA ear, nose and throat examination was performed in
December 1988. It was reported that surgery in 1975 had
provided help to the veteran for 3 to 4 years. An evaluation
of the nose reported that the septum was generally straight.
A December 1988 VA physical examination reported a history of
a submucous resection in 1975 which had given the veteran
benefit for two years. The evaluation of the nose revealed
that there was no nasal obstruction at the present time. It
was reported that apparently the veteran had had a submucous
resection and there was little deviation of the septum. A
private physical examination in June 1991 reported some
deviation to the nasal septum.
A personal hearing was held at the RO in December 1990. The
veteran testified that he had a deviated septum during
service for which surgery was performed in 1975. He averred
that he had had trauma to the nose. He reported that at one
time he fell and he ended up hitting his face on sand bags.
The veteran reported that the incident probably was what
caused the septum to deviate. It was reported that the
incident occurred in 1969. He stated that he found that he
did not have a broken nose, he let it bleed for a while and
did not go to a doctor for treatment.
An October 1993 VA medical examination reveled normal
findings in an evaluation of the nose.
Analysis
The Board has reviewed the entire evidentiary data of record
and concludes that the preponderance of the evidence is in
favor of the veteran's claim of entitlement to service
connection for the postoperative residuals of a deviated
nasal septum.
The record reveals that a deviated nasal septum was first
shown during the veteran's period of active service and that
due to left nasal obstruction a nasal septectomy was
performed in 1975. The veteran has testified as to the
probable injury that caused the deviated nasal septum during
service. Post service clinical records reveal residuals of
the deviated nasal septum, in that an entirely straight nasal
septum is not reported. A deviated nasal septum was first
shown during service and despite surgical intervention, there
is post-service clinical evidence of a deviated nasal septum.
The Board concludes that the postoperative residuals of a
deviated nasal septum were incurred during service, and
therefore service connection is warranted.
Low Back Syndrome
Where entitlement to compensation has already been
established and an increase in the disability rating is at
issue, the present level of disability is of primary concern.
Although a rating specialist is directed to review the
recorded history of a disability in order to make a more
accurate evaluation, see 38 C.F.R. § 4.2, the regulations do
not give past medical reports precedence over current
findings. Francisco v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 55 (1994)
The RO has assigned a 10 percent disability evaluation for
low back syndrome under the provisions of Diagnostic
Codes 5010 and 5295 of the VA's Schedule for Rating
Disabilities, 38 C.F.R. Part 4, arthritis due to trauma
substantiated by X-ray findings and lumbosacral strain. The
rating provisions of Diagnostic Code 5292, involving
limitation of motion of the lumbar spine will also be
considered here.
The service medical records show that the veteran received
treatment throughout service for complaints of low back pain,
at times attributed to injuries that he had sustained. The
diagnostic assessment was primarily chronic low back pain or
low back syndrome. On the basis of the service medical
records, the RO, in June 1989, awarded service connection for
low back syndrome. A 10 percent rating was assigned based on
findings noted during the December 1988 VA medical
examination. During that examination, evaluation of the
musculoskeletal system revealed that there was a 15 degree-
loss of forward flexion in the lumbar spine. The veteran
reported complaints of forward leg raising in the left hip.
In a supine position, the examiner was able to flex and
rotate the hip without any problem. Inconsistent responses
to various tests were reported. An X-ray examination of the
lumbosacral spine revealed a narrowed disc at L5 - S1 with
vacuum phenomenon. The diagnosis was degenerative joint
disease of the spine. A contemporaneous orthopedic
examination revealed that the veteran had a normal gait and
that he was able to walk on his heels and toes and squat. A
straight leg raising test revealed that he reached 85 arc
degrees. There was normal configuration of the lumbosacral
spine. The diagnosis was chronic lower back chronic lower
back syndrome.
A VA outpatient treatment clinic entry from September 1989
revealed that an evaluation of the back showed that the back
was straight and that there was full range of motion and
extension. Continued complaints of low back pain were
reported through December 1990. Private clinical findings
from June and July 1990 reported that the veteran was able to
get his fingertips to his knees.
A personal hearing was held at the RO in December 1990. The
veteran testified he had back pain and that he was able to
touch his fingertips to his knees. He testified that he had
left leg pain and numbness.
A physical examination was performed by Donald L. Rappe,
M.D., in June 1991. It was reported that the veteran was
unable to flex more than 10 degrees and unable to extend
greater than 5 degrees without pain, which was mostly
centered over the left lower back and sacroiliac area.
Tilting and twisting maneuvers caused pain. An X-ray
confirmed mild degenerative arthritis and disc disease of the
lumbar spine. History of degenerative disease in the back
confirmed by myelography with fairly severe functional
limitations based on examination was the diagnostic
assessment.
A VA medical examination was performed in August 1991. The
veteran reported that a CAT scan and myelogram which had been
performed had revealed bulging discs in his back. He
complained that he had pain which was present all of the
time, partially relieved by analgesics. Physical examination
of the low back revealed slight tenderness in the lumbosacral
area, especially in the region of L3 and L4. Straight leg
raising was negative. It was indicated that a neurological
evaluation was intact. The veteran was able to touch his
knees. Low back syndrome, history of herniated disc at L3
and L1 was the diagnostic assessment.
During a VA medical examination in June 1992, it was reported
that the veteran moved around the room smoothly and quickly.
Complaints of back pain were reported. Objectively, the
veteran was able to perform toe and heel raises. Very
limited lateral motion due to pain was reported. He was able
to bend forward to touch his knees with complaints of pain
and stiffness. Straight leg raising was positive at
20 degrees, bilaterally. The diagnosis was history of low
back pain with degenerative joint disease and disc disease,
by history. In September 1992 and January 1993 a VA
physician reported that the veteran had chronic low back pain
secondary to degenerative arthritis.
A VA medical examination was performed in October 1993. It
was noted that the veteran moved around the room with ease.
Complaints of low back pain were reported. Objectively, the
veteran was able to toe and heel raise. Range of motion
evaluation was somewhat limited. With some encouragement, he
was able to bend forward to 70 degrees; laterally to
20 degrees; backwards 10 degrees; and rotation was
approximately 30 degrees. Straight leg raising was positive
at 30 degrees on the right and 80 degrees on the left, and
this exaggerated response was queried. An X-ray of the back
revealed L5 - S1 disc disease. The diagnostic impression was
mild low back syndrome, with question of exaggerated response
on examination.
Analysis
After a review of the entire evidentiary data of record, the
Board concludes that the preponderance of the evidence is
against the veteran's claim for an increased evaluation for
low back syndrome.
Disability evaluation are determined by the application of a
schedule of ratings which is based on average impairment of
earning capacity. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. Part 4.
The veteran is currently in receipt of a 10 percent
disability evaluation for degenerative arthritis and
lumbosacral strain under the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a,
Diagnostic Code 5295. A 10 percent disability evaluation
requires lumbosacral strain with characteristic pain on
motion. A 20 percent disability evaluation requires muscle
spasm on extreme forward bending, unilateral loss of lateral
spine motion in a standing position. Under the provisions of
38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5292 a 10 percent
disability evaluation is provided for slight limitation of
motion of the lumbar spine. A 20 percent evaluation is
available for moderate limitation of motion of the lumbar
spine.
The record reveals that the veteran has a long history of low
back pain complaints. Objectively, the most recent medical
examination of the veteran’s low back revealed forward
extension to 70 degrees; lateral extension to 20 degrees;
extension backwards to 10 degrees; and rotation to 30
degrees. Some evidence of neurological deficit is also
indicated, reported as positive straight leg raising.
However, it is important to note that the veteran's low back
syndrome has been described as mild. There is no evidence of
muscle spasm nor is there any indication of a unilateral loss
of lateral spine motion. Evidence of moderate limitation of
motion of the lumbar spine is not demonstrated. The Board is
aware that a private physician in June 1991 reported severe
functional limitation of the back. However, the findings
reported by the physician are inconsistent with clinical
findings reported by other examiners with respect to the
lumbar spine
Where entitlement to compensation has already been
established and an increase in the disability rating is at
issue, the present level of disability is of primary concern.
Although a rating specialist is directed to review the
recorded history of a disability in order to make a more
accurate evaluation, see 38 C.F.R. § 4.2, the regulations do
not give past medical reports precedence over current
findings. Francisco v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 55 (1994).
In essence, the Board finds that the veteran's low back
syndrome disability picture does not approximate the criteria
necessary for a higher disability evaluation. 38 C.F.R.
§ 4.7. Additionally, this case does not present such an
exceptional or unusual disability picture with such related
factors as marked interference with employment, frequent
periods of hospitalization, requiring consideration on an
extraschedular basis. 38 C.F.R. § 3.321(b).
The Board has considered the veteran’s testimony from the
December 1990 personal hearing in which he reported his low
back complaints and symptoms. The Board finds that the
weight of the veteran’s testimony is limited, in light of
clinical findings which do not reveal low back disablement
which satisfies the criteria necessary for a higher
disability evaluation.
Therefore, the Board is compelled to conclude that the
preponderance of the evidence is against the veteran's claim,
and an increased evaluation for low back syndrome is not
warranted.
Allergic and Vasomotor Rhinitis
Where entitlement to compensation has already been
established and an increase in the disability rating is at
issue, the present level of disability is of primary concern.
Although a rating specialist is directed to review the
recorded history of a disability in order to make a more
accurate evaluation, see 38 C.F.R. § 4.2, the regulations do
not give past medical reports precedence over current
findings. Francisco v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 55 (1994)
In June 1989, the RO awarded service connection for allergic
and vasomotor rhinitis based on service medical records
reflecting long-standing treatment for multiple allergies,
either seasonal or acute. Allergic rhinitis was the
diagnosis on occasion. The RO awarded a 10 percent
disability evaluation for allergic and vasomotor rhinitis
under the provisions of Diagnostic Code 6501 of the VA's
Schedule for Rating Disabilities, 38 C.F.R. Part 4, atrophic
chronic rhinitis, on the basis of a December 1988 VA ear,
nose and throat examination. The examination of the nose
revealed mild dryness. It was indicated that the turbinates
were of average size, and that he had used Seldane that
morning.
A personal hearing was held at the RO in December 1990. The
veteran testified that his rhinitis symptoms included
burning, crackling, popping and redness. He testified that
he used Seldane. The veteran reported that when he awakened
in the morning he sneezed maybe 20 to 25 times, and that his
sinuses were symptomatic. He averred that the rhinitis was
more severe in the spring and the fall.
A VA medical examination was performed in October 1993. It
was reported that the veteran had not had any significant
problems with allergic and vasomotor rhinitis until
approximately one year previously when pine pollen arrived.
At that time he had had severe allergic symptoms and
congestion. Allergic symptoms were in the eyes and
apparently were secondary to infection for which he was
treated with antibiotics. His condition cleared. It was
reported that when he moved and his base symptoms cleared.
It was reported that an examination of the pharynx and the
nose was basically normal. An examination of the eyes was
normal. The diagnostic impression was recent specific
allergic and vasomotor rhinitis to pine pollen by history.
A VA outpatient record in May 1993 reported treatment for
allergies. The veteran complained of raspy breathing and
coughing which were worse than usual. The diagnostic
assessment was asthma, Christopher's syndrome, and seasonal
allergies. In June 1993 the veteran complained of itching
and redness of the left eye with "a little sore" inside the
left upper eyelid, bilateral nostrils, and ears.
Conjunctivitis and rhinitis were assessed diagnostically.
Analysis
The Board has reviewed the entire evidentiary data of record
and concludes that the preponderance of the evidence is
against the veteran's claim for entitlement to an increased
evaluation for allergic and vasomotor rhinitis.
Disability evaluations are determined by the application of a
schedule of ratings which is based on average impairment of
earning capacity. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. § Part 4.
The veteran is currently in receipt of a 10 percent
disability evaluation under 38 C.F.R. § 4.97, Diagnostic
Code 6501 for chronic atrophic rhinitis with definite atrophy
of intranasal structure, and moderate secretion. A 30
percent disability evaluation under Diagnostic Code 6501
requires that there be moderate crusting and ozena, atrophic
changes.
The veteran has a long history of allergic rhinitis
exacerbations. The most recent clinical findings with
respect to the ears, nose and throat were essentially within
normal limits, with a history of allergic and vasomotor
rhinitis being reported. Other recent findings were limited
to the eyes. The allergic and vasomotor rhinitis is clearly
symptomatic and reportedly seasonal. However, with respect
to the clinical evidence, there are no findings indicating
moderate crusting and ozena, atrophic changes. The Board
finds that the veteran's disability picture does not
approximate the criteria necessary for a higher disability
evaluation. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. Additionally, the case does
not present such an exceptional or unusual disability picture
with such related factors as marked interference with
employment or frequent periods of hospitalization, requiring
consideration on an extraschedular basis. 38 C.F.R.
§ 3.321(b).
The Board has considered the veteran's testimony concerning
his allergic and vasomotor rhinitis symptoms and the
frequency of exacerbation. However, the testimony is limited
in probative value considering recent clinical findings that
do not show pathology consistent with the criteria necessary
for an increased evaluation for allergic and vasomotor
rhinitis.
The Board concludes that the weight of the evidence is
against the veteran's claim, and an increased evaluation for
allergic and vasomotor rhinitis is not warranted.
ORDER
The claim of entitlement to service connection for the
postoperative residuals of a deviated nasal septum is
granted.
The claim of entitlement to an increased evaluation for low
back syndrome is denied.
The claim of entitlement to an increased evaluation for
allergic and vasomotor rhinitis is denied.
REMAND
The veteran is presently service connected for degenerative
joint disease of the cervical spine, rated 10 percent
disabling under 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5010,
arthritis due to trauma. The basis of the award under this
Diagnostic Code was not explained in the rating action. A
review of the service medical records by the undersigned does
not reveal that the disorder was the result of trauma. It
appears that the disorder might be systemic in nature. If
that were the case, then a diagnosis of degenerative joint
disease of other joints would be service-connected as part of
the systemic disorder. In that case, a revaluation of the
joints claimed by the veteran to be affected with
degenerative joint disease would be required.
A review of the claims folder shows that during service the
veteran had some elevated blood pressure readings and on one
occasion mild hypertension was assessed diagnostically.
However, annual service physical examination reports
throughout service do not reveal any hypertension diagnoses.
At a VA physical examination in December 1988, a history of
hypertensive cardiovascular shown during service in 1980 is
reported. The examination revealed a blood pressure reading
of 130/90. The diagnosis was mild labile hypertensive
cardiovascular disease. A history of mild hypertension in
service was reported in a June 1991 private medical
examination. The veteran’s blood pressure was reported as
140/80. Occasional elevated blood pressure readings have
been reported since then, and it has been indicated that the
veteran’s use of the medication Hytrin for another disorder
keep his blood pressure within normal limits. The Board is
of the opinion that a complete VA cardiovascular examination
would be helpful to possibly confirm hypertension and
determine its likely onset.
In addition, with respect to the claim of entitlement to a
total rating based on individual unemployability based on
service connected disabilities, the record reveals that the
veteran has been awarded Social Security benefits. A Social
Security award letter and clinical records reportedly used in
that determination are of record. However, this information
has been submitted by the veteran or on his behalf, and there
is no indication that VA has directly sought any Social
Security records, or that the records submitted by the
veteran are the complete records. It has been determined
that not only must the final Social Security Administration
decision be obtained, but all records upon which that
decision was based must be obtained as well. See Martin v.
Brown, 4 Vet.App. 136 (1993). It is not certain from a
review of the claims folder that all the medical records used
in the Social Security determination have been associated
with the claims folder.
Furthermore, we note that the issue of entitlement to a total
rating based on individual unemployability is not listed as a
certified issue for appeal on the VA Form 11-8 authorized in
April 1991. The claim has been denied by the RO and
supplemental statements of the case encompassing the claim
have been issued. In an October 1992 statement the veteran
disagreed with the determination. The issue should be
certified for appeal, and the veteran notified of the
certification.
In view of the foregoing, this case is REMANDED for the
following:
1. The RO is to review the basis for the
September 1992 assignment of a 10 percent
rating under 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a,
Diagnostic Code 5010. If the award was
based on a finding of trauma to the neck
in service, this should be documented.
If the award was based on evidence of
systemic degenerative joint disease, this
should be noted. If it is determined
that the veteran has systemic
degenerative joint disease (versus
traumatic arthritis), he is to be
afforded a VA orthopedic examination.
The examination is to be conducted by an
orthopedist. All joints claimed by the
veteran to be affected by degenerative
joint disease are to be examined. All
indicated tests and studies are to be
performed. The claims folders and a copy
of this remand are to be made available
to the examiner prior to examination for
use in the study of the case. The
physician is to comment on the nature and
extent of the degenerative joint disease,
including the degree to which it causes
pain and functional impairment. Reasons
and bases for the opinion are to be
included.
2. The veteran should be afforded a VA
cardiovascular examination to determine
whether the he has hypertension, in light
of VA and private clinical findings from
December 1988 and June 1991, previously
reported. All appropriate tests and
studies should be performed. If
hypertension is shown, the examiner is
requested to review the claims file to
determine the likely onset of the
disorder. The claims folder and a copy
of this remand must be made available to
the examiner prior to the examination for
use in the study of the case.
2. The RO should contact the Social
Security Administration and obtain copies
of any determinations in the veteran's
case, along with all medical records used
in any such determinations.
3. The RO should certify the issue of
entitlement to a total rating based on
individual unemployability due to service
connected disabilities and notify the
veteran of the certification.
When the requested development has been accomplished, if the
claims remain in a denied status, the appellant and his
representative should be furnished with a supplemental
statement of the case and afforded a reasonable opportunity
to respond thereto. Thereafter, if necessary, the case and
the requested evidentiary data of record should be returned
to the Board of Veterans' Appeals for further appellate
disposition.
RENÉE M. PELLETIER
Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals
The Board of Veterans' Appeals Administrative Procedures
Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 103-271, § 6, 108 Stat. 740, 741
(1994), permits a proceeding instituted before the Board to
be assigned to an individual member of the Board for a
determination. This proceeding has been assigned to an
individual member of the Board.
NOTICE OF APPELLATE RIGHTS: 38 U.S.C.A. § 7266 (West 1991 &
Supp. 1995), a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals
granting less than the complete benefit, or benefits, sought
on appeal is appealable to the United States Court of
Veterans Appeals within 120 days from the date of mailing of
notice of the decision, provided that a Notice of
Disagreement concerning an issue which was before the Board
was filed with the agency of original jurisdiction on or
after November 18, 1988. Veterans' Judicial Review Act, Pub.
L. No. 100-687, § 402, 102 Stat. 4105, 4122 (1988). The date
that appears on the face of this decision constitutes the
date of mailing and the copy of this decision that you have
received is your notice of the action taken on your appeal by
the Board of Veterans' Appeals. Appellate rights do not
attach to those issues addressed in the remand portion of the
Board's decision, because a remand is in the nature of a
preliminary order and does not constitute a decision of the
Board on the merits of your appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b)
(1995).
- 2 -